What a can of worms David Cameron has opened up with proposals to place Gay Marriage on the same footing as Traditional Marriage.

This is not about discrimination of homosexual or lesbian individuals but neither must there be discrimination about the religious beliefs of others, who currently seem to be taking second place to the wishes of a relatively small vociferous section of the population and an ill-informed Prime Minister.

Never forget that if one demands tolerance then one should also be prepared to extend it to others and it should not be a one-sided operation

This is yet another tricky subject because of the potentially intolerant stance it elicits - nevertheless, as time goes on it becomes increasingly clear that these proposals were not adequately thought out initially before rushing to suggest them. This seems to be 'about par' for the Government whose mantra is speak first & think later - i.e. Prince Charles Rightly Questions Rushed Succession Bill

Furthermore, this proposal was not part of any election manifesto which formed the basis of the current Government being elected; so in this respect one will never really know whether these ideas have the support of the electorate

Inevitably the conflict between Church (generic term for religious beliefs of all types) and State has come to the forefront over this issue. A great many of these Religions do not countenance the principle of homosexuality, so same-sex marriage in its suggested form is an anathema to them. However, because of their views, they are therefore in danger of being marginalised by the State for upholding their beliefs; and all to satisfy the wishes of a minority few

The issues would seem to be as follows:

Apart from merely extending existing heterosexual marriage to same-sex couples, the legislation will redefine marriage for all couples

The proposal seems to involve heterosexual marriage itself being amended to accommodate the wishes and lifestyles of members of the gay community

Hitherto, the Government has claimed that this is merely an "equality" issue, however, these fundamental changes belie Government statements. Although whether the electorate has been lied to on purpose by David Cameron is another question

Government figures indicate that only 6,000 couples per year will avail themselves of the right to gay marriage; compare this with roughly 230,000 heterosexual marriages per year

Same-sex couples will not gain one single legal additional entitlement that they do not already enjoy as a result of the introduction of civil partnerships - so what is the reason for this except as political mileage?

Ultimately, the Government has absolutely no idea what the full ramification of the introduction of same-sex marriage will be for employees such as teachers, nor for churches and religious groups as issues of equality are raised in the European courts

Finally, a real hurdle for the Government is the definition of 'consummation' in respect of same sex marriages. The problem here is that failure to address this matter flies in the face of two fundmental existing concepts - Annulment and Adultery; both of which exist under current hetrosexual marriages

One has to ask how difficult it is to provide a definition about this factual action? Therefore in order to avoid this difficult issue, centuries-old concepts, which are the cornestones of some Religions, are to be turned on their head because of political expediency and the fact that the Government feels uncomfortable with providing a definition of Gay sex.

So far as Christians are concerned it might just be worthwhile stating the Ten Commandments and in case of any doubt this is the one we are talking about

Thou shalt not commit adultery

These commandments have been around rather a long time and now David Cameron and the UK Government proposes to get rid of this one because it does not fit his political agenda

Anyway it is comforting to know that David Cameron has now made the Ten Commandments less onerous by knocking one off the list. Welcome to the new 'streamlined' Nine (9) Commandments courtesy of the UK Prime Minister

There was an interesting article in the Daily Telegraph concerning this issue. Unfortunately, for some reason the article in seems to be unavailable online - so it is reproduced below

Daily Telegraph, Saturday 26th January 2012, p8

Gay marriage Bill may be death of adultery

By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor

The centuries-old concept of adultery could be abolished in law as a result of the Government’s plans for same sex marriage, lawyers and MPs said last night. Under a long-awaited Bill allowing homosexual couples to marry, only infidelity between people of opposite genders would count as adultery in divorce cases. It means that people in a same-sex marriage who discover that their spouse is unfaithful to them would not be able to divorce on the basis of adultery – unless it was with someone of the opposite sex. Equally, it makes clear that heterosexual people cannot accuse their partner of adultery if they discover they had a secret lover of the same sex

It comes after government legal experts failed to agree what constitutes “sex” between same-sex couples. The Bill also makes clear that homosexual couples would not be able to have their marriage annulled on the grounds of non-consummation for the same reasons. Lawyers and MPs said that the distinction over adultery created inequality between heterosexual and homosexual couples in the divorce courts and would lead to confusion. They said it made it likely that adultery would simply be abolished as a grounds for divorce – either through Parliament or through the courts.

Maria Miller, the equalities minister said she hoped to “strengthen the importance of marriage in our society” and said supporters believed the Bill would be “good for society”. But among opponents, the Roman Catholic Church warned that it would “radically alter” the meaning of marriage for everyone and “undermine the common good”.

As well as allowing gay couples to marry in Britain for the first time, those in civil partnerships will be able to “convert” to marriage – either with a new ceremony or simply paying a £100 administrative fee and requesting a new certificate. Briefing papers published with the Bill, which will be debated next month, show that the Government expects about 6,000 same-sex couples a year will choose to marry, although there could be an initial “spike” in the first few years as those in civil partnerships upgrade.

The papers make clear that officials are also expecting an “influx” of applications for gender reassignment as a result of the new law, which would enable a married person to have the surgery without having to get divorced. It is thought that as many as 3,000 people would opt to change their gender as a result. Officials also predict that the change in the law could open the way for gay marriage “tourism”, with couples coming to Britain to tie the knot because it is not legal in their own country. As official impact assessment estimates the changes will cost up to £4million, with computer systems being altered and some divorce forms being pulped and reprinted. It also estimates that up to 1,200 churches, synagogues and other religious buildings would offer same-sex weddings. The Bill includes a series of measures that the Government insists would protect religious freedom by ensuring religious institutions are not forced to carry out same-sex weddings.

But lawyers who drafted the Bill sidestepped the question of defining what constituted sex between gay couples by including a clause saying that only "conduct between one party to the marriage and a person of the opposite sex" would constitute adultery. Ayesha Vardag, a leading London divorce lawyer, said that the creation of the new distinction could pave the way for adultery to be abolished in law. Listed among the 10 Commandments and recognised in English law since at least Anglo-Saxon times, adultery was the sole ground for divorce in Britain until the 1920s. But in recent years wronged spouses have increasingly cited "unreasonable behaviour" as a grounds for divorce. But it is still cited in 17,000 divorces a year in England and Wales. "The only appropriate and balanced way to deal with this would be to scrap the act of adultery as a basis for divorce altogether," said Ms Vardag.

In the end all that it comes down to is David Cameron trying to gain political advantage in a very damaging way. When with a bit more thought the process could have probably been addressed in a better way to achieve the desired goals - bulldozing these thing through rarely works well, especially if peoples (DC) motives are suspect in the first place

Pension planning is a long term exercise and changes made within 10 years of retirement provide little leeway to those coming up for retirement to obtain the requisite qualifying years

The principle is a good one, but the execution may be considerably flawed. A great deal more thought needs to be given to implementation and transitional arrangements. Unfortunately the devil is in the detail and in this respect there is no clarity

Originally men & women needed 44/39 years of contributions to qualify for a full state pension. This was changed so that after April 2010 it dropped to 30 years contributions for everyone and now proposals are in place to raise it again to 35 years in order to be eligible for the new flat rate pension.

In the meantime anyone who already had 30 years contributions has probably stopped paying any more NI (on Government advice) if they were making voluntary contributions to top up their years.

Now only to be told that they need a further 5 years contributions to be eligible – but what happens if they have used up their ‘back years’ contributions their age doesn’t permit them to achieve the additional 5 years contributions necessary to qualify under the new proposals? Do they lose out in the pension lottery?

On the other hand to get bereavement benefits you need to pay 39 years of National Insurance contributions for women and 44 years for men – so it’s back to square one if you die; where is the consistency with this?

All very messy and in need of being urgently sorted out

Also, don’t forget that there is a category of women coming up for retirement, born within a certain date range, who have already been disproportionately disadvantaged under the last round of pension age shifting, which saw pension ages being deferred by a relatively huge amount for those within 4/5 years of retirement.

A very discriminatory process for women in this age group who in the worst case scenario probably lose up to £25,000 retirement benefits in total

Women falling into this category are now in danger of being disadvantaged once again in a ‘double-whammy’ by these recent proposals.

Quite frankly this Government cannot keep penalising women & those nearing retirement in this overtly discriminatory manner – start introducing some fairness into the proceedings

Especially when all this is stacked up against those on benefits with pension credits, automatically eligible for everything despite possibly never having done a day’s work in their life.

Otherwise this whole thing really does send out the wrong message

If the Government really wants to concentrate on something, then how about totally unsustainable Public Sector Pensions which need to be placed on the same footing as the Private Sector for all new entrants, with immediate effect

If the forthcoming UK referendum comes out in favour of the UK withdrawing from the EU then what happens to existing 'Treaties' with the EU? One would assume that they are instantly worthless and unenforceable, although, with countries such as Spain, 'Gunboat Diplomacy' would not be unforseen; they are not going to lightly give up advantages won under very dubious / questionnable circumstances in the 1970's

Take for instance the long running sore of The Common Fisheries Policy - presumably that becomes void and the UK reverts back to the status quo prior to joining the EEC?

Just to recap on the history of this 'con' by the EEC ....

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP)

Immediately prior to Norway and the UK applying for membership of the E.E.C. in 1970, the six original members drew up Council Regulation, 2141/70, giving each other ‘equal access’ to each other's fishing waters. As none of the existing members had any fishing waters worth talking about, this could only ever have been a calculated attempt at sequestering the assets of new applicants in a 'land/waters grab' - quite apart from illegal it was also blackmail by the EEC

The underlying reason for Regulation, 2141/70, was that approximately 70-80% of the ‘European’ fish stocks were to be found within UK National Waters and as a new member of the EEC Britain would have to accept all existing European Legislation.

New EU applicants have to negotiate on the basis of the 'acquis communautaire' - in other words, existing legislation, and the CFP had to be hastily put together in order for the EU to illegally capitalise on the benefits of other new member states

A point worth noting is Council Regulation, 2141/70, was only adopted on the morning of 30 June, the day the British application for membership was made

However, no valid negotiation can ever take place on the basis of illegality and therefore the CFP was effectively a licence for illegal fishing by exiting EU countries

UK Politics

One additional factor was the willingness of Edward Heath and UK politicians to ignore British interests in pursuit of their political ideals.

In October 1971, Geoffrey Rippon, Britain’s chief negotiator stated ‘.. one thing is certain . . . we should not sign a Treaty of Accession which would commit us to the present fisheries policy..’

A number of Ministers at the time, made a similar statements and MPs voted on accession to the treaty during a debate in which the passage relating to fisheries was NOT published; so the debate was on flawed principles engineered by those who drew up the debate topic.

On 22 January 1972 Edward Heath signed up regardless of UK interests and more for personal glory

Legality of the Regulation

During the first 22 years of its existence the CFP was completely illegal; according to the EEC's own laws

None of the Articles quoted in the treaty, numbers 7, 42, 43 and 235 mention fisheries.

Article 38 is usually quoted as the source but was, in actual fact, left out of the regulation in the haste to draw it up.

Finally, authorisation was retrospectively inserted into Article 3 of the Treaty of Maastricht!

Implementation

As with most EU matters the UK implements the CFP absolutely to the letter of the law, whereas others, most notably Spain, do not do not adopt the same vigilance and allow their nationals a free rein in these matters; especially if they are in Spains National Interest. But then most of the members take this approach and only the UK seems to follow the rules

Regulation of each nation’s fishing vessels is left to that nation itself and Spain has very few fisheries inspectors who spend most of their time in Madrid, some way from the sea. The result is that Spanish vessels are lightly regulated, if indeed any actual regulation takes place at all, which seems unlikely, but 'par for the course'

This 'Spanish' practice was so widespread that when 1995 the Canadians boarded a Spanish ship, the Estai, they caught her concealing an illegal catch in a secret hold, with a fraudulent log book.

Impact of the CEP on the UK

The UK provides 70%-80% of the fishing waters and accordingly are the main losers in this arrangement; whilst others over fish and take advantage of the situation at every opportunity and to the detriment of the UK's own fishermen

Addendum

Norway subsequently passed a law that limited the size of vessels allowed into the 6 to 12 mile zone; which was a double blow to the British deep sea trawlers in the light of the fact that they had given up their own fishing grounds. Although, in the end Norway did not join

WELL THE UK WANTS THEIR FISHING GROUNDS RETURNED

AFTER THEY WERE ORIGINALLY ILLEGALLY STOLEN BY THE EU

The passage of time can never ratify an initial illegal act, however, much the EU would like this to be the case. Moreover, why has no-one taken this illegal act to the European Court and voided all subsequent legislation on this subject after the EU's original illegality?

Furthemore, the CFP needs to be declared void; all member state fishing in UK waters must cease immediately and damages paid to the UK in the form of the value of each members annual catch from these waters since the date the CFP was invoked (1971), together with interest on all monies here mentioned (all these figures should be easily available from EU records)

The message is very simple - Crime Does Not Pay - Not even EEC sponsored illegal acts!

With this in mind the EU cannot surely be surprised at the UK antipathy and reluctance to engage - after all the EU behaved disgracefully AND ILLEGALLY at the outset when the UK applied to join the EEC; so they have actually brought it on themselves and never really addressed the issue with any intention of 'righting the original wrong'

‘.. decisions should be taken as closely as possible to the citizens of the Union in accordance with Article 5 (ex Article 3b) of the EC Treaty ..’

'.. The main condition for embarking on Community action is set out in the second paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, which states that the Community shall take action:

"only if and in so far as the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale or effects of the proposed action, be better achieved by the Community".

The Protocol cites three criteria for judging whether this condition has been fulfilled:

does the action have transnational aspects that cannot be satisfactorily regulated by the Member States?

would action by Member States or lack of action conflict with the requirements of the Treaty?

The reality of the situation is that in a number of instances the EU has completely ignored the principle of Subsidiarity in attempts to vest in itself greater powers than it actually has; by forcing through policies that are dictated at Union level rather than ratified at membership level

This is bullying by those ivory towers and in no way adheres to the principles of Subsidiarity - but then we have always know that the EU has one set of rules for themselves and another for member states

We hear that the German Bundesbank has plans to repatriate a large chunk of its overseas gold holdings (post 1945) back to Berlin in a decision ratified by the German Government last September; currently 69% is held outside Germany and only the US holds more gold reserves than Germany

This in turn, raises the interesting historic issue of the gold reserves of the Third Reich which is an entire subject matter on its own, although it has no bearing on the current situation, because Germany's current gold reserves do not relate to gold from the pre-1945 era

The mechanics of the arrangement are that 300 tonnes of gold from the Federal Reserve in New York and all of Germany's gold stored at the Banque de France in Paris, 374 tonnes, will be returned to Frankfurt

This move suggests that Germany does not trust other central banks to hold it's gold and more importantly, questions whether Germany has underlying doubts about the value of the Euro. Therefore repatriating the gold brings control directly back under Germany's sphere of influence

However, the interesting aspect of the whole arrangement is that ALL Germany's gold held by France is being removed, whilst some of their gold remains in the US and the Bank of England

According to the FT:

'.. we don’t think it’s too much of a wild speculation to suggest that in the event of a euro break-up, Germans would feel much more jumpy about France holding a chunk of their gold hostage, than the US or the UK ..'

Interesting in these times where the UK is being pilloried by the rest of Europe over their membership of the EU, that Germany does not seem to trust their major partner in Europe to hold their gold

'.. Inspectors in the Republic of Ireland traced the burgers to two processing companies owned by the ABP Food Group, Silvercrest Foods in Ireland and Dalepak Hambledon in Yorkshire. Liffey Meats was also found to have supplied beefburgers with traces of equine DNA ..'

There is really nothing wrong with horsemeat 'per se' as food and in fairness Tesco was not alone; Iceland, Aldi and Lidl were also guilty

However, surely the real issue is not even that the product has been mis-labelled but rather the provenance of the horsemeat may well be unknown

With this in mind we are dealing with illegal meat and all the ramifications that surround this area. Just how Officials can be quite so quick to emphasise that there are no health risks is unknown, especially when the source of the horsemeat has yet to be determined

Why are bodies such as The Food Ethics Council quite so quick in making statements when in actual fact, at this point nobody really knows the history of the horsemeat ?

'.. The Food Ethics Council said that it was immoral to destroy the withdrawn burgers and that they should be given free to anyone willing to eat them. Dan Crossley, the chief executive, said: “It takes throwaway culture to a new level.” ..'

Without hard evidence one way or another this is a totally irresponsible statement - or is The Food Ethics Council saying that it acceptable to give 'potentially' contaminated food to the less well off rather than first of all determining whether it is safe? Fewer 'sound bites' and more common sense is required!

David Heath, the Environment Minister, seems to be dismissing the matter of Horse Passports as irrelevant and placing the blame on criminal activity. Nevertheless, the whole point of these documents is to prevent animals entering the food chain where they have been taking certain medicines - to quote from the UK Government web site on the reasons for horse passports:

make sure horses treated with certain medicines don’t end up as food for people

prevent the sale of a stolen horse, pony or donkey, as the passport proves its identity

Therefore, without further investigation

HOW DOES ANYONE KNOW WHETHER THE HORSEMEAT

WAS FIT TO EAT IN THE FIRST PLACE ?

Less spin and more hard evidence please, before everyone comes out in denial

The Food Ethics Council

As an aside let us just have a look at the The Food Ethics Council Accounts 2012 to see what we find:

Income £182k - staff costs £130k & no employee received more than £60k.

Therefore, presumably 1 employee did receive around £60k plus associated NI etc. and this is approximately 1/3 of the charities annual income for the year

On the face of it, this looks life another ‘life-style’ charity benefitting certain participants - £60k for managing £180k worth of income make the bankers approach to commissions and bonuses look very reasonable indeed

The latest bandwagon for everyone to jump on is removing benefits (such as winter fuel allowance) paid to ‘richer pensioners’ (undefined).

Now the Times Leader has joined the debate with a dysfunctional article which only portrays one side of the equation and ignores the reality of the existing state pension system. Backing up their argument with crass statements such as:

‘.. And while inflation and low interest rates have undoubtedly eaten into their savings since 2008, the elderly have been largely insulated from the financial pain of the young ..’

How is underwriting the banks and those in negative equity with artificially low interest rates paid for by savers being '..largely insulated..'? Muddled thinking from those who should know better - or perhaps they have their own agenda?

Pensioners benefits have only come about because the UK state pension is one of the ‘meanest’ in the developed world. Not only is it lower than all but three of the developed nations but also Britons face having to wait longer than people in any other industrialised country before they can retire

Furthermore, comparisons show that pensioners in the UK only get state payments worth 41.5% of average after-tax earnings. Whereas in Spain and Italy, the state pension is worth 84.9 and 75.3% of average earnings respectively and in the US, which has one of the least generous welfare systems, the state pension there is worth 50% of average earnings. In France it is 60.4% and in Germany 57.9%.

A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which represents 34 industrialised nations, found only Mexico (32.2% of average earnings), Ireland (35.8%) and Japan (39.7%) have lower state pensions than the UK

By all means remove, additional pension benefits but replace/reallocate them to providing a basic state pension more in line with the rest of the developed world – to do otherwise would be yet another ill-advised approach and never forget that 'extra' benefits exist to supplement an woefully inadequate state pension

So before everyone starts complaining about UK pension top ups perhaps they should do their homework, or even consider introducing a basic state pension which is at least 50% of average after-tax earnings. Better still, introduce a state pension which is an average of all EU countries pensions (including Greece which is 111.2%)

Once again, if it is all about a united Europe why are member countries allowed to be wildly out of synchronisation in this areas as well as state benefits etc. – one currency should also mean one set of financial rules throughout the Union

However, if cuts really are the order of the day (and they should be) then why is everyone avoiding the ‘elephant in the room’ – PUBLIC SECTOR PENSIONS

One of the problems with the present government is the constant knee-jerk rush to implement ideas that have not really been thought out properly in an attempt to demonstrate how egalitarian and forward thinking they are

We have already witnessed this previously over gay marriage (not in the election manifesto) and once again it is being encountered over the monarchy and succession issues

The government is trying to fast-track through parliament the succession to the crown bill at the earliest opportunity. This is the bill which will change the ancient laws governing the royal line of succession to ensure the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child would succeed to the throne regardless of gender

Prince Charles is right to speak out against what can only be described as having all the hallmarks of a rushed botched job over the monarchy and succession, with little thought to the longer term implications

Included in the planned reforms is the proposal to allow the couple's first-born to marry a Catholic (although not to be one), without having to renounce the right to succeed

David Cameron seems to have completely ignored concerns raised previously by constitutional experts and theologians, concerning the issue of what would happen if first in line's future spouse were Catholic and insisted any children be raised as Catholics. This would either bar their child from the throne or compromise the monarch's role as supreme governor of the Church of England

Although, Canon law does not stipulate that children from a marriage between a non-Catholic and Catholic must be raised in the Catholic faith; nevertheless the Catholic must make a declaration:

"that I will sincerely undertake that I will do all that I can within the unity of our partnership to have all the children of our marriage baptised and brought up in the Catholic church"

So how does Mr Cameron propose to deal with this issue? Will he try to brush it under the carpet or off-load it onto the Judiciary in the same way as the definition of 'consummation' (requirement for annulment) has been avoided with gay marriages?

Difficult questions need to be addressed rather than adopting politically expendient ways round the issues that resolve nothing - but invariably that is politics; all smoke and mirrors!

The aspect that is disappointing in all this is the Prime Ministers complete lack of comprehension over the issues involved - surely he cannot actually be as stupid as he is portraying himself?

We need an explanation as to whether TRONOX KZN SANDS are complying fully with the law or have they started mining and construction before all the necessary authorisations are in hand, and before the environmental appeal process has been completed

If Tronox (previously Kerr-McGee Corporation - now liqudated) have begun the process without the necessary pre-requisites in place, what does the American Government propose to do about the situation; or is it deemed an acceptable approach to ride roughshod over the population of other countries where American interests are involved?

In the light of all the howls of indignation over the BP Gulf environmental situation one would have thought that the American Government should be rather sensitive to overall environmental issues and wish to set an example in these matters. Especially those where the actions of American Corporations could have an adverse impact on the quality of life of people in other countries; one needs to tread very carefully

Save Our Sands (SOS) Mtunzini Campaign

'.. Our objective is to get TRONOX KZN SANDS to do a full Scoping and Environmental Impact Assessment, something that the law requires for this scale of activity, but which Tronox has avoided up to now. We believe that only then will there be a transparent and comprehensive evaluation of the project, which will result in it either being stopped, or modified to be less destructive to the environment and amenities of Mtunzini and a wider Zululand ..'

Environmental Record

Tronox was established after the Kerr-McGee Corporation liquidated itself in the U.S. when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claimed several million dollars from the company due to serious environmental offences. Kerr-McGee was convicted of polluting areas in 22 federal states with, among other things, radioactive waste. Some of this waste was dumped in the Colorado River.

'.. The U.S. Department of Justice, in a lawsuit on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency and other environmental and state agencies, says Kerr-McGee fouled 2,772 sites, including Columbus, during seven decades of producing chemicals, fertilizer and plutonium pellets. The lawsuit, scheduled for trial beginning May 15, seeks $25 billion to clean up the toxins and compensate tort claimants -- or the people who say they’ve been personally harmed

Trouble is, Kerr-McGee no longer exists. It disappeared in a spinoff, a merger -- into Anadarko Petroleum Corp. (APC) -- and a bankruptcy, corporate maneuvers that have frustrated small-town residents across the country who say the pollution has ruined their health ..'

‘..Europe has given Britain two months to scrap its policies which prevent benefit tourists claiming billions of pounds in handouts..’

‘..European immigrants should be able to claim handouts and pensions without first having to pass a test proving that they have settled in Britain, the European Union has said ..’

Once again the European Union is issuing edicts without any comprehension of the impact, understanding of the eventual result or accountability; which seems to be par for the course with EU politicians and Brussels bureaucrats

Unfortunately this seems to be the way that the EU operates today, when virtually unelected politicians seek to impose their will and strengthen their ‘power base’ by including ever more disparate countries in the Union. An ‘ivory tower’ sending increasingly greater subscription costs to the membership, whilst rewarding themselves handsomely all round and ignoring the rest of Europe’s hardship or problems

How can countries with wildly different average incomes form part of any grouping without large number of the 'poorer' population moving to the 'richer' countries. Furthermore, the receiving countries have little control over their own borders because their rights have also been removed by the EU

Instead of addressing the real problems within the EU, which are too many and ranging to mention (corruption to financial), the politicians simply ‘march on’ with even more countries and regulations, which can only really end one way – badly. We now have the absurd situation where two proposed new entrants need bailouts before they even join the club – absolute nonsense.

Furthermore, it has now become questionable as to whether any of the countries ‘in bailout’ can ever (or ever wish to) repay their debts, which means that there will inevitably have to be future write-offs on a massive scale

Anyway, here are two solutions to the Social Security / Benefit issues, which should solve the problem, result in an equitable solution and prevent benefit tourism

Solution A

The EU could pass a regulation insisting that every country comes into line with identical Benefit hand-outs.

Either raise or lower the levels, it doesn’t really matter which route is chosen; just that benefits throughout the EU should be the same in every country and maintain parity. After all everyone insists on a single exchange rate so why not a single benefits rate?

Therefore, if the UK has benefits of £130 per week then so should Latvia and all the other EU countries. Alternatively Latvia etc. can maintain their £xx but UK and the rest of the EU should have to reduce their levels to come into line with Latvia - really very simple

Accordingly the position would be neutral and there would be no advantage in migrants polarising towards countries with the most beneficial Social Security systems because every country would offer the same benefits

Solution B

The UK banking structure has the concept of a ‘clearing system’, whereby all banks collect money owed to them from other banks in the system.

The EU needs to setup an equivalent system to the ‘banks clearing’ but on a country by country basis - The EU Country Clearing System.

Once this EU Country Clearing System has been created it would then be a simple matter for Benefit payments to be reclaimed by one country from the claimants country of origin directly.

This would ensure that migrants claiming benefits are not an undue burden on their country of residence which would be reimbursed by the claimants country of origin